The First Office of the
Great Rabbi Yechezkel Landau in Yampol

by Aryeh Leib Gellman

A small town full of Torah Sages - Famed Tsaddikim found their place of rest
there - The first settlers were exiles from Spain - He served there in the
Rabbinate ten years - He accomplished much concerning spreading Torah study -
He initiated many ordinances - The Ledger of the Chevra Kadisha was written in
his own hand - Was involved in solving the problems of Abandoned Wives - A
serious question from Ashkenazic Scholars - Accuses Rabbis who do
not want to permit anything without payment.

(A)

The illustrious Rabbi, Yechezkel Segal Landau, author of the books: Noda
BiYehuda (Famous in Judea), Tslach, Doresh LeZion (Seeker of Zion), Ahavat Zion
(Love of Zion) and Dagul Merevava (Outstanding Among Thousands), is known to
the Jewish world as the Head of the Rabbinical Courts in Prague, an important
city in the Jewish world, famous for its leading rabbis. Such leaders as the
Maharal of Prague held office there and taught the Torah to the people.
Unfortunately, although most of the chroniclers of Jewish history have told the
history of Jewish life in many lands and portrayed life in the Jewish
community, they did not give due attention to the spiritual greatness of the
renowned rabbis and luminaries of Judaism of those eras, who occupied a
leading role in the communal life and left their spiritual impression not only
within their own localities, but rather spread their religious and ethical
wings over the Jewish life far beyond the limits of their own communities.

The centuries following the 1492 Spanish Expulsion were rich in spiritual and
religious life and as such are a distinct period in Jewish history. The great
rabbis of these ages were not interested in matters of the community alone, but
principally in disseminating Torah and in moral guidance. One of the towering
Torah figures of his time was Rabbi Yechezkel Segal Landau (b. 18 Cheshvan 5474
[1714] in Apt; d. 17 Iyar 5553 [1793] in Prague) whose first appointment was at
Yampol where he served for ten years. It was during this period that he first
achieved fame through his deep Halachic responsa and his wonderful sermons. In
a responsa (Noda BiYehuda Tinyana (vol. 2), Even HaEzer, Section 116), he
writes to a rabbi on the issue of writing a bill of divorce (gittin), In
my first community they write Yampola (in Hebrew characters with an
Aleph after the initial Yud). Were I the first to write a divorce contract
(get) in that town, I would have written Yampol (without the
Aleph), but since this was already the accepted custom when I arrived, I made
no change.

Hebrew literature and particularly Ashkenazi literature, is full of
biographical essays on Rabbi Landau, his nature, and his ideology as spiritual
leader of Jewry during that period, but all of it centers on the Prague period.
In order to complete the picture, a few of his Torah activities during the
Yampol period should be added. My sources were his own writings, and reports I
heard from the elders of Yampol, my birthplace. These stories were handed
down father to son.

(B)

The town of Yampol, in the province of Volhyn, where I was born, educated and
grew up, boasted, like many Pale or Settlement towns, a circle of leading
householders. These included some Torah scholars, some well-educated in the
'enlightenment,' Chassidim, and pious men who would have been prominent even
in a large city. Even though their livelihoods were irregular, and all
struggled to make a living in the town or in the surrounding villages, an aura
of nobility pervaded the town. Most of them had a good religious education,
and even the simple people and artisans were drawn to the holy books. On
Saturday and religious holidays, they would sit at tables in the study houses
or kloizes, listening to Torah studies and sermons.

The town was near Kremenetz, Brody, Dubna, Ostra and Rovno, and came under
their influence in Torah, Chassidut and general education. Yampol was the home
and final resting place of the famous righteous men and fathers of Chassidut:
Reb Yechiel Michel of Zloczow (d. 25 Elul 5546 (1786)); his son, Rabbi Yosef,
known as the Righteous Reb Yosseleh of Yampol (d. 24 Tevet or Shevat 5572
(1811-1812). Rabbi Landau mentions him in Tslach (Tractate Beitzah, Chapter 1,
page 5b), Over forty years ago the brilliant Rabbi Yosef of Yampol asked
 Besides his greatness in Torah and Chassidut, he was a religious
philosopher and an expert on Maimonides' Guide to the Perplexed,
and other works. Some of the town's elders would tell of Reb Yitchok Ber
Lewinsohn (known by his Hebrew acronym: RIBA'L) author of Beth Jehudah, Teuda
BeYisroel, Zerubavel, Efes Damimm, and other works, who lived in Yampol for
three years during the lifetime of Reb Yossele. He later moved to Kremenetz.
It is well known that RIBA'L was a leading opponent to Chassidut. He visited
Reb Yosseleh only once when he and a friend had difficulty understanding a
passage in the 'Guide to the Perplexed'. Reb Yossele offered a satisfactory
explanation, and RIBA'L said he regrets not having visited Reb Yossele before.

Other figures were Rabbi Yaacov-Yosef of Ostra, the grandson of Rabbi Yi'vi
[abbreviation for Rabbi Yaakov-Yosef ben Yehuda] (d. 23 Tammuz 5609 (1849));
Rabbi Michele of Shomsk, grandson of Reb Michael of Zloczow, and other
offspring of other chassidic Rebbes.

This town was blessed with many famous Rabbis and Chassidic leaders during
Chassidut's early years. Nevertheless, the town was free of the strife and
controversy that were rife in other towns and communities when Chassidim first
appeared.

This town, located on low ground between the hills (mountain ranges) surrounded
by canals and lakes, existed in this manner for centuries. In the ancient
cemetery, on the outskirts of the town, embedded in the ground, were old,
worn-out tombstones, centuries old. Some called the town the Miracle
Sea [Yam Pelle in Hebrew] on account of the many miracles that saved the
townspeople from the periodic pogroms. It was commonly believed that the Jews
had formerly lived in the hills, but were moved by the Gentiles to the lowlands
so that if threatened, their only recourse would be to jump into the rivers
So life flowed down the generations in that little town upon the Goryn river.

(C)

Who the early rabbis were who sat in judgment in this town, we do not know,
just as we will never know for sure how Jews arrived here. (There is an old
tradition that the original settlers were Spanish Jews who came here following
the exile from Spain. Reb Yithak Ber Lewinsohn (RIBA'L) reports in his
Beth Judah in 5517 (1757) an account of a great blood libel in the
town of Yampol in Volhyn, my great uncle, Rabbi Elyakim of Yampol,
traveled to Rome at the behest of the great rabbis of the Four Lands who met in
the Great Assembly in the town of Brody. He met with the High Priest (Pabst)
(the Pope) to discuss the matter of the blood libel. He succeeded in bringing
back an epistle to the entire kingdom of Poland, written in Latin signed in the
Pope's own handwriting and sealed with his seal, to totally dismiss this empty
blood libel.. For six consecutive years the Rabbi was in Rome and he worked
hard on this matter. He was highly respected by the Pope and his cardinals as
a brave, intelligent man, well versed in the Torah. He was a descendant of Reb
Yosef ben Shmuel HaLevi who was exiled by King Ferdinand of Spain. From
this account we can conclude that the early settlers were Spanish exiles.

In 5505 (1745), Rabbi Yechezkel Landau, aged 30, was appointed Head of the
Rabbinical Court of Yampol. Already at this young age, he was highly regarded
by his peers and particularly by the famous Sages of the Kloiz of Brody,
who were lions and tigers in the Torah and in piety.

The fact that the townspeople turned to Brody, which was known for its Torah
scholars, and chose the young Reb Yechezkel, about whom the great Cabbalist,
Rabbi Haim Zanser, testified that Yechezkel peered into Structure of the
Chariot, [the reference is to the prophet Ezekiel's vision associated
with the higher reaches of Cabbalah], is a testimony to the strong Torah
character of the townspeople.

In the introduction Words of Endearment to the first volume of
Rabbi Yechezkel Landau's classic, 'Noda BiYehuda' (Famous in Judea), his son,
Rabbi Yakovka Segal Landau, a pillar of the Brody Jewish community, writes:
In his thirtieth year, the year of Tzaddik Be'emunatho [the righteous in
his faith (Habakuk 2;4) 'Be'emunatho' has a numerical value of 505, to indicate
the year he arrived in Yampol 5505] a divine wind bore him to my birthplace,
Yampol. (On the outside of the eastern wall of the great synagogue in Yampol,
which was twice destroyed by fire, the first time during the tenure of the Noda
BiYehuda, was inscribed the date Ki mimcha hakol umiyadcha nathanu lach
[For all is from You and we have given from Your own hand (Chron. I
29;14)] probably only some of the letters were meant to be counted since the
total numerical value is 841. I was unable to determine the exact date.)
Like a lion he disseminated Torah to the public. Students began to flock to
study with him. Every promising scholar who saw some success in his studies
would come to him and 'dine' at his table. Thus the Jewish world was filled
with spiritual leaders. Every day these young scholars would discuss his
theories and recite his praises. They would tell of his intellectual power and
of his high character. They spoke so highly of this great man that community
leaders came to him for advice and he judged disputes within the community and
his rulings were obeyed. Thus it was all the time that he was in this city,
although it was a short time, he became the talisman of the town and did not
think of leaving. His staff grew and blossomed throughout the area. The city
was quiet during the ten years he lived in Yampol. But as soon as he left, the
leaving of the righteous man left its mark, and the quiet did not last long.
When he left he was joined by his son in law, my brother-in-law, the famed
Rabbi Joseph, who was afterwards rabbi and rosh yeshiva of Posen. Our mother,
the Rebbetzin, left with us the children the following summer and as soon as we
had left there were bitter troubles [in the town] and we escaped with G-d's
help. He had not yet reached his fortieth year in the year Chukath Hatorah
[the decree of the Torah Chukath has a numerical value of 514 to
indicate the year 5514] and he was appointed Head of the Rabbinical Courts and
Rosh Yeshiva of the capital Prague. His place in Yampol has a special
endearment, and its light and honor arrived at the beginning of the year Shira
[song had a numerical value of 515 to indicate the year he left
Yampol 5515.]

(D)

In addition to his reputation as a scholar of great wisdom and stature in
Halacha, Rabbi Landau was also a gifted speaker. As his son Rabbi Yakovke
reports: he suited every sermon to the occasion whether joyful or sad; he
was highly praised by princes who had heard of his words and had them
translated to their own tongue. Several of his translated sermons were
printed.

During the Yampol period, Rabbi Landau concentrated solely on Torah analysis
and Halacha study. From 5505 (1745) to 5513 (1753) he would speak twice a
year, on Shabbos Hagadol (before Passover) and Shabbos Shuva (between Rosh
Hashana and Yom Kippur) on complicated Talmudic passages. Thirteen of these
sermons were collected in his book Doresh Zion on the following Talmudic
passages:

1) Parshas Hamiluim - Rabbi Yochanan said Eliyahu will explain this in the
future (Menachoth 45a)

2) Just as the [bitter] waters test her, so they test him (Sotah, beginning of
chapter 5)

3) When the fourteenth [of Nissan] falls on the Sabbath (Pesachim 66a)

All these sermons discuss the most delicate Halachic issues and his mastery of
all aspects of Torah was astounding.

It is interesting to note that all his books of sermons and novellae bear
titles which include the name Zion, Doresh Zion,
Ahavat Zion, Ziun LeNefesh Chaya.

In the introduction to his book, Ziun leNefesh Chaya [Monument for
the Living] (known by the acronym Tslach this work comprises his
novellae on the tractates of Brechoth, Beitzah, Pesachim), which includes both
straightforward analysis of Talmudic passages and deep interpretations in
Aggada (homilies), he explains why he gave the book that name:

And Yechezkel said: 'What benefit will man see in his work, all his days
of vanity' (Ecclesiastes 1,3; 6,12) if he does not leave a lasting memory after
he is gone so that even beyond the grave, his lips will continue to speak
clearly. So all my years, since I turned twenty, and G-d favored me with
the opportunity to teach students, I have gained some noteworthy insights
on several tractates of Talmud and the commentaries, and have pointed out
observations which can arouse the interest of the students, but unfortunately I
did not write them all down and unfortunately some have been lost. Now I must
be content with that which I have written down. They appear here together with
what my students recorded. Seven years ago G-d granted me the opportunity to
publish my responsa Noda BiYehuda which I named after my father,
and now I repay my debt to my modest and pious mother with this monument to her
living (Chaya) soul. I have chosen this book on three tractates of the Talmud,
Brachoth, Pesachim, Beitzah, A Monument for the Living Soul I called my
responsa Noda BiYehuda after my father [Yehuda] and I have called this
volume Ziun Lenefesh Chaya a memorial (Tsiun) for the soul of the living
(Chaya) in honor of my mother, Chaya.

I must point out that all my insights are for the benefit of students;
the great Torah scholars can do much better. I prepared a pauper's offering.
Nevertheless, even greater men than myself may benefit from this book, if only
that it will save them time. Thoughts which took me several hours of work to
reach, will be immediately accessible to them. A particularly difficult
subject was the passage of Rabbi Chanina S'gan Hakohanim (Pesachim 14a) which
afforded many a sleepless night. Especially Maimonides' interpretation of this
passage in his introduction to Tahroth, one of the orders of the Mishna, was
very puzzling until, with G-d's help, I succeeded in resolving it. I now offer
thanks to G-d for the fifty years He has enabled me to teach Torah. I pray
that I will live out my days in such a manner and that He will enlighten me and
my children and students in the light of the true Torah.

(E)

The elder Torah scholars in our town liked to talk about that great era; about
the yeshiva that Rabbi Yechezkel maintained in his study house, and his method
of teaching Torah. One of the older men would point to his seat in the study
house. Such was the oral tradition he had heard. As an indication of the
power these memories had for the scholarly crowd (which even in my day was
dwindling,) is the existence of two closed bookcases which were kept locked.
These bookcases housed the study books that had served the students in that
golden era. As one of the regular students at the study house, I was once
allowed by the sexton to examine the contents of the bookcases. There I found
some Talmud tractates, Rav Alfas, books of morals and some Halacha books, etc.

Decades had passed since Rabbi Landau's office in Yampol, yet his influence was
still felt in the curriculum of the schools and adult study groups. His method
is well-known as it was laid out in his books. He strongly objected to empty
intellectual acrobatics and he demanded that all discussion be directed toward
determining the Halachic ruling. This method was adopted not only in Yampol
but in all of Volhyn and the surrounding districts.

Rabbi Yechezkel's second son, Rabbi Shmuel Landau, who succeeded him in Prague
explains his father's system in his introduction to 'Doresh Zion.' The
great and straightforward men devote their principal energies to extracting the
Halacha from each topic and to resolve apparent contradictions. Even correct
analyses and differentiations, which can enlighten the students in the correct
methods of study, are proper to raise, but not empty sophistry
which you may turn over and over and still remain with nothing worthwhile.
Rabbi Horowitz (the Shelah) has already castigated those who study in this
manner. They are in the category of `those who reveal false faces of the
Torah. Their conclusions are based on weak and scanty evidence and their
efforts are wasted. They are drawn away from the true path and use their
intellect to develop incorrect ideas and at the end of the day they remain
empty of Torah and do not arrive at a Halachic conclusion 

Thorough investigation into the Talmudic sources and Halacha rules, in order to
discover the Halachic ruling, - this was his method. Although all the paths of
Aggada, the Zohar and Cabbalah were clear to him, he nevertheless refrained
from writing on these matters. In his Tslach [Ziun Lenefesh Chaya] on
Berachoth page 33 he writes: It is true that all our Rabbis' writings in
Aggada are in code and riddles. Those who are capable will grasp their
meaning, each scholar according to his level. My own feeling is that the
revealed Torah was handed down to us and our children on Mount Sinai, but the
hidden Torah was only hinted at, and even this only in part. But we hope that
G-d will reveal His Presence before us once again and then He will reveal the
hidden depths of the Torah's secrets as He did previously on Sinai.

In a Responsum sent to the Ga'on Rabbi Yeshaya Berlin (Yoreh Dei'ah 2:161) who
wondered in his question why he does not respond in relation to Aggadic
(homiletic) matters he replies:

 Behold, I am surprised - what is the point of going on at length? Do
the words of our Sages, then, require approval? Is there anyone foolish enough
to darken the great light, to ascribe error to words of Aggadah? All the words
of the masters of the Talmud, without exception, were given by the One
Shepherd, and they do not contain anything which is empty or untrue. If
anything appears empty, it is our fault, and a consequence of our lack of
intelligence, and the weakness of our ability to clearly comprehend the deeper
allusions of their words.

Of course, if a person has the spare time, he should try his best to probe the
meaning of words of Aggadah as well. All I said was that it is not my custom
to reply to inquirers on such matters, because all the words of our Sages in
Aggadic matters are sealed and closed, and they are all difficult to understand
(at first sight), and if we start trying to explain them, there is not end to
the matter, especially for someone like myself, who is burdened by public
duties - it is enough for me if I find the time to reply on practical
issues.

There is nothing which stands in the way of Halachah. This was his fixed and
clearly-paved path, in which he guided thousands of students, who spread the
teachings of their teacher throughout the Jewish Diaspora.

(F)

In the decades during which Rabbi Yechezkel lived in Yampol, he worked and
achieved a great deal to spread the study of Torah, and he continued this holy
task with greater energy and greater dedication in Prague, until the day of his
death. In his Responsa he always excused himself for the delay in his replies,
as a result of his constant distractions due to his students, whom he loved and
cherished with all his heart and soul.

His timetable was such that he used to deliver four lectures every day, and on
Fridays he would study with his students Chumash with the commentary of Rashi
(he had a particular inclination towards the study of Rashi, because he held
that he was himself a descendent of Rashi.) In a Responsum to one of his
disciples he writes (Even Ha'ezer 1:56): I received your letter, and I
remembered how you used to stand before me in the community of Yampol, and your
devotion to Torah, and I was pleased that you have achieved the status of being
a true teacher to the community of the Lord. As for your complaint that you
wrote to me twice, and that I have refrained from replying to you - this is not
my custom to any learned man, let alone in relation to my student whom I reared
and nurtured.

Apart from the burden of the Yeshivah, which was placed upon him, he enacted
various ordinances relating to affairs of the town, and he instituted order in
the conduct of the Chevra
Kadisha (Burial Society.) The ordinances in the Register of the Chevra (which
will be reproduced at the end of this book) were written in his own
handwriting. I myself have looked through this Register many times, and I was
astonished by his perfect handwriting, which was clear and free of corrections.
The Register was copied out for me by the local rabbi, Rabbi Meir Shmuel
Lerner, the son of the old rabbi, the Ga'on Rabbi Aryeh Leibush Lerner, who was
the principal disciple of the Ga'on Rabbi Shlomo Kluger of Brody. The Ga'on
Rabbi Aryeh Leibush Lerner served as Rabbi of Yampol for more than sixty years.
The contents of the Register are similar to those of all such Registers, which
record the ordinances of the Chevra and its decisions. Even though they have
no particular historical importance as such, it is worthwhile saving them from
oblivion, since they were written by the hand of one of the greatest of Rabbis,
whose everyday conversation was imbued with holiness.

Apart from the ordinances in the Register, various other ordinances are
mentioned in his work 'Noda BiYehudah.' In Orach Chayim 1 ch. 33 we find an
ordinance concerning the lighting of candles by a non-Jew on Yom Kippur. He
replied to the inquirer as follows: Concerning your astonishment, that
many communities have the custom that a non-Jew lights candles on Yom Kippur at
the time of the Ne'ilah service - you should know that here in our community
this custom has already been stopped, thank G-d, and also when I was in the
community of Yampol, when I arrived there I found that this was their wont and
I stopped it. However, I did allow a non-Jew to move the candles which had
been lit before Yom Kippur, and to spread them out throughout the synagogue,
and this is permitted because it is a rabbinic prohibition applied to another
rabbinic prohibition [i.e. doubly light in severity] which occurs at the time
of performing a mitzvah.

Another ordinance which he established relates to the chalitzah shoe [*1]. In
his Responsum (what is a (Ever Ha-ezer 2:154) he writes: When I
came here (to Prague) I discovered that their chalitzah shoe was cut at the
back out of three pieces, and I changed it to two pieces. And when I first
came to the community of Yampol, I also found that they had a shoe made of
three pieces, and I did not want to change it then, and I allowed it for a
number of years until I saw the work Yamshed Shelomo on Tractate Yevamot, in
chapter 12 paragraph 7, and I said it is sufficient to reduce the number of
pieces and not to add a third one for no reason. There is no doubt that the
more pieces you have, the more there is a problem of 'patchwork' shoes,
especially since the third piece is superfluous and unnecessary. As far as
winding the straps is concerned, the custom is to start from the front towards
the back, and one starts winding it round behind the foot.

In the previously-mentioned Responsum regarding lighting candles on Yom Kippur,
we see a glimpse of his powerful personality as a leading and decisive halachic
authority. Which rabbi nowadays, however well-known, would dare to say publicly
(Orach Chayim, ibid) Who asked the community to do this, to recite
piyutim (additional liturgical phrases on festivals)? Let them not say piyutim
and selichot, but rather, listen to the cantor, and not do something which
is forbidden according to the opinion of most authorities. The Noda
BiYehuda was not afraid or intimidated, but rather, decided what he felt to be
correct according to his understanding of Torah. Many of his rulings
occasioned storms from time to time, and considerable disquiet in Rabbinic
circles, but he, as a person who was firm in his views, took no account of his
opponents and antagonists, since only the truth was his guiding light.

(G)

As soon as he arrived in Yampol, he became involved in a complicated problem,
which required considerable research and a capacity for bold ruling. We find
his Responsum about this in Noda BiYehudah (Choshen Mishpat 1:7) written
halfway through the month of Tammuz 5505 (1745) in Yampol.

It happened in our community that the deceased Reb Segal passed away to
eternal life. Reb Aharon then produced a document signed by the deceased in the
sum of 10,000 coins by way of capital, apart from profits. The heirs argued
that, on the contrary, it is he who owed our father money, because we heard our
father complaining vociferously that he did not know what to do about Reb
Aharon, in whose hands my money has been lying idle for a considerable
time and which I cannot recover. Now in the estate of the deceased we
find two blank signatures of the above-mentioned Reb Aharon, and we have to
settle this matter, because it seems to me that there are a number of
uncertainties here.

After clarifying the issue from all possible angles, he ruled that We
have to speak up on behalf of the orphans, and allege that their father
had paid off his debts, even though he left the document in the hands of Reb
Aharon, because he could have employed various stratagems to avoid liability.
For example, he could have written out a deed for the stipulated amount.
Therefore he did not bother to recover his deed, because this stratagem is
better than selling all his property.

Here we see the Noda BiYehudah sitting in his Torah laboratory
dipping his hands deeply into the murky world of the halachic queries which
engulfed the Jewish world of his time. He goes from strength to strength, from
monetary matters to questions of life and death. He deals with questions of
agunot [abandoned wives,] or, as he himself puts it in one of his Responsa
to save Jewish women from the chains of being an agunah. Anyone
who studies this section of his Responsa (Even Ha'Ezer chapters 312 - 315 etc.)
dealing with a discerning eye, cannot but be impressed and moved by the
brilliance of mind with which he was blessed.

In these Responsa - which are his first decisions and rulings - we see the
power of his genius, penetrating to the depth and breadth (of a subject),
drawing from ancient sources, analyzing with subtle logic the relevant issues,
and reaching a conclusion - of a lenient nature. He constantly emphasizes that
he is one of those people who are hesitant to rule, and in one
Responsum (Even Ha'Ezer 1:32) he writes I am one of those who are afraid
to rule because I know the weakness of my abilities, lacking as I am in the
power of a man, and especially in relation to a serious issue such as a marital
problem, to untie and break the chains of a 'tied woman' - and this is
something which should be placed on the table of princes - by which I mean
Rabbis - who are familiar with the whole of the Talmud, from whose attention
nothing escapes, and should not be asked of someone of such lowly status as
myself (for what place is there for stubble together with pure wheat?) - but
what option do I have, since the matter is one which has occurred within my
sphere of jurisdiction, and I am therefore obliged to deal with it in the first
place, to take pity on the misfortune of this poor woman and to heal her
wounds.

Despite this, we find another contemporaneous Responsum of his (Even Ha'Ezer
2:128) where he stands firm in his approach, and writes The conclusion
relating to this woman is that if my permissive ruling was written before you,
Sir, ruled in the negative, I stand firm by my opinion that she is permitted,
and just as I ruled then, so do I rule now, with the power of leniency.

And the greatness of this giant of spirit reached such great heights that he
could retract his previous opinion and admit I was wrong. In one
of his Responsa (Even Ha:ezer 1:28) he adds in a footnote: Says Yechezkel
- this responsum I wrote whilst yet a child, about thirty six years ago and
because I was very young, I was exceedingly fearful of taking decisions and I
tended to strictness in most of my reasoning rather than to leniency but
now I have changed my mind and that which I said (then) is in fact
mistaken.

Commensurate with his greatness is the degree of his humility.
Nothwithstanding his great power of decisiveness, there are occasions when he
stipulates in advance (ibid. chapter 29 towards the end) that you should
not rely upon me at all, unless you obtain the agreement of three leading
authorities If they bestow their approval on my words and agree to permit
it then I too will join 'the lions' since I am sure that their intention
is for the sake of Heaven and that if they rule leniently, it is not because of
any desire to benefit financially but in any event, they should not base
anything they say upon me because it is possible that I have missed even a
simple thing, which is not radical in any way, but rather, the great
authorities of this generation should put forward their proofs and justify
their positions as against me, for if I do not possess seniority (in age) how
can I possess wisdom? And I am, after all, but an empty vessel, a new vessel,
if it pleases them.

(H)

Amongst the other difficult queries - perhaps the most difficult - which came
before him when he first lived in Brody, and then in Yampol, was the following
question, one which caused him (according to the testimony of his
biographers) much anguish and soul-searching.

In the year 1744 he received a query from 'Ashkenazi scholars' of a certain
community, whose name is not mentioned in his lengthy Responsum (Even Ha:ezer
1:72) so as not to upset the family concerned, which was a distinguished and
respected family. Furthermore the father of the husband was a powerful man,
who made use of civil law courts, and who had obtained from the judge a harsh
ruling to punish severely anyone who would publicize the matter.

The facts of the case were as follows. Serious rumors had been spread about
the woman who was the subject matter of the query, to the effect that she was
an immoral woman. In that town there was a custom that before Rosh
Hashanah a number of.people would come before the Beth Din .. to confess
their sins and to receive some.sort of penitence, as would be determined by the
spiritual leaders, by way of fasting or deprivation, each one as appropriate to
the extent of his iniquities and each one would come by himself.

As a result of their confessions, it became known to the Beth Din that the
woman concerned was guilty of immorality. The rumors increased on a number of
occasions but because the woman's family and that of her father-in-law, were
powerful people given to violence, they managed to hush them up. But now that
the Beth Din saw that a number of men had been ensnared in the trap of this
adulterous woman, they came to the decision to inform her husband's father one
night, in a gentle fashion, and with the exercise of a degree of discretion,
seeing that he was such a powerful and forceful person.

After some days had passed, the husband's father came to the Dayanim and asked
them to send one night for the penitent confessors and to cross-examine them,
after application of the threat of excommunication (if they were to tell a
lie.) The Dayanim did indeed do so that very night, and having been warned
about the excommunication, they said what they had to say and they told the
husband's father that night. Immediately he threatened that he would reveal
the names of the witnesses and he gave instructions to beat them up cruelly but
they refused to tell him the names and they said to him quite reasonably,
Why do you want to have a adulterous woman in your house?

The responsum continues with a detailed account of the inquiries and
investigations and the testimony presented before the Beth Din, and
afterwards the relatives of the woman spread a rumor that the witnesses were
suspect and disqualified to act as witnesses. After exhaustive
investigation, the Dayanim came to the conclusion that this rumor was
groundless and they could not be disqualified. And then the father
of.the husband went to the civil courts, together with the wife's relatives, to
lodge a complaint against the Dayanim and witnesses, and the ruler became very
angry with them and imposed a severe punishment on them, both physically and
financially, and he ruled - on pain of a large fine which would be impossible
to pay - that no one should say anything about this matter. In short, the
husband's father carried out the threat he had made at the beginning.
And now the husband and wife want to continue living with one another -
and we request a ruling as to their status according to the laws of.our holy
Torah.

[From the sermon which he preached in Yampol on Shabbat Shuvah in the year 1753
(see Doresh Letziyon, Derush 13) we learn that this difficult query came to him
whilst he was still in Brody in 1744, as he writes And behold,
approximately nine years ago I gave an answer to this difficulty - noted by the
son of the author: See Noda BiYehuda 1 Even Ha-ezer 72 and 74, and Noda
BiYehuda 2, Even Ha-Ezer 77 at end.]

The woman concerned was a native of Yampol but when the Noda BiYehuda received
the query from Ashkenazic sages of a certain community (whose names
are not mentioned, for the reason given previously) he was not intimidated nor
cowed by the potentially serious consequences. He began to analyze the
question with reasoning of astonishing brilliance and scholarship. And after
clarifying - on the basis of sources in the Talmud and halachic authorities,
whether early or late - all the possible arguments one could find to absolve
the woman, he concludes by way of practical ruling that this wife is
forbidden to her husband by means of a severe prohibition of Torah law and she
is considered impure (forbidden) just as any incestuous
relationship and if her husband does not divorce her, then he too is not free
of guilt, and he shall bear the consequences of his iniquity and the rest of
the Jewish community is blameless.

The scholars of the kloiz in Brody, including the Ga'on Rabbi Meir
Margolioth - author of the work Meir Nesivim and amongst the
greatest scholars of that time - the Kabbalist Rabbi Chaim of Sanz, the
well-known Chassid Rabbi Avraham Gershon Kaitover (brother-in-law of the Ba'al
Shem Tov) and others, supported the ruling of Rabbi Yechezkel. They were very
incensed over the perversion of justice and audacity of the wealthy men, in
particular, the father of the husband, who was - as previously noted - a
powerful man who utilized all resources, based on the judgment in the civil
courts, to ensure that the ruling should not be publicized anywhere. Similarly
the family in Yampol could not forgive Rabbi Yechezkel for this ruling of his
and became his enemies for as long as he lived in Yampol.

Dr. Klein, who was one of his biographers, and wrote about him in a German
anthology, speculates that he was forced ultimately to give up his post in
Yampol because of this ruling of his. It seems to me, however, that this is
an unfounded speculation. What is most surprising is that some of the elders
of the town, who were very familiar, by way of traditions from their parents,
with many details of his public life, do not mention this episode at all and
never suggested that it was because of this that he had to seek a new post.
The reason why he chose to move to Prague is very simple: because he was too
restricted in a small town.

(I)

Before he left Yampol in July 1755, he responded to a difficult question (Even
Ha'Ezer 1:36.) A certain person went on a journey from the community of
Brailov to little Poland and did not return home. After making
inquiries, they found the corpse of a dead man who had certain identification
marks on his clothes and body. His wife said that her husband had an
identifying mark, namely a scar from a wound he had had on the finger next to
his right index finger but on the corpse they found there was no such scar,
although there was a scar on the finger next to his left index finger. The
grandfather of the woman, who presented the query to me, said that it is quite
likely that she made a mistake and that she made a slip of the tongue between
right and left and they should therefore question her
again.

In his reply he excuses himself on the ground that he was about to leave the
town and that he had no books with him because many of his books had been burnt
because we had a great fire in our community and those books which I
saved from the fire I have already sent on ahead. I do not have any place of
rest so how can I respond to such a serious query without research [in my
books?] But our generation is an impoverished generation and there are some
people who are familiar with the words of the halachic authorities but do not
want to give a permissive ruling unless they gain financially thereby and they
take bribes to issue decision. There are others who wish to be considered wise
and are not familiar with halachic authorities. And so I said [to myself]:
Come what may, 'let me turn aside for a while and have a look' and maybe I can
find a solution for her, especially as I declare that no one should rely on my
decision alone until it is supported by leading halachic authorities.

And after clarifying the problem at great length, starting with the early
sources, from the Rif and Rambam, until the most recent contemporaries,
and the principal authority on this is the Ga'on Maharal of Prague
he concludes by ruling that we can put together various grounds for
leniency and permit this woman, based on the various marks of identification,
including the clothes with a clearly stated proviso, however, that two
leading halachic authorities agree with me and if they agree with me - well
and good, but if not - everything I have said is null and void because I have
already written that my books are not here and I am writing in a hurry as I am
going to be leaving here, the holy community of Yampol, within the next few
days on Monday, the 6th of Av 1745.

In this Responsum the Noda BiYehuda spreads a clear light about the sorry state
of affairs which then existed in a number of communities in the Rabbinic world.
The clear accusation against certain Rabbis of that generation that they
do not want to permit anything without financial gain and they take bribes to
judge is a heavy accusation which only a Torah giant such as he could
permit himself to make and this was typical of the strength of his Rabbinic
personality.

This material is made available by JewishGen, Inc.
and the Yizkor Book Project for the purpose of fulfilling our
mission of disseminating information about the Holocaust and
destroyed Jewish communities. This material may not be copied,
sold or bartered without JewishGen, Inc.'s permission. Rights may be
reserved by the copyright holder.

JewishGen, Inc. makes no representations regarding the accuracy of
the translation. The reader may wish to refer to the original material
for verification. JewishGen is not responsible for inaccuracies or omissions in the original work and cannot rewrite or edit the text to correct inaccuracies and/or omissions.
Our mission is to produce a translation of the original work and we cannot verify the accuracy of statements or alter facts cited.